Steven Coyne

Steven Coyne, Diana Galvan-Sosa, Ryan Spring et al.

This study examines feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing contexts, focusing on written corrective feedback (WCF). Large language models (LLMs) can provide WCF at scale, but aligning them with pedagogical best practices remains an ongoing challenge. WCF meeting criteria like factuality or relevance may still be unsuitable for learning contexts, highlighting the need for extrinsic evaluation based on the learner's perspective. We deployed WCF systems in a university-level EFL class with nearly 2,000 students, collecting over 20,000 drafts. We evaluated the generated WCF from two perspectives: intrinsic evaluation by experienced English teachers using a rubric, and extrinsic evaluation via student feedback and engagement metrics. Results revealed low alignment between teacher expert ratings and student feedback. These findings suggest that traditional expert evaluation alone may not fully capture WCF's usability or helpfulness from the learner's perspective, highlighting the importance of learner-centered evaluation frameworks for AI-based applications in language education.

Steven Coyne, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Diana Galvan-Sosa et al.

GPT-3 and GPT-4 models are powerful, achieving high performance on a variety of Natural Language Processing tasks. However, there is a relative lack of detailed published analysis of their performance on the task of grammatical error correction (GEC). To address this, we perform experiments testing the capabilities of a GPT-3.5 model (text-davinci-003) and a GPT-4 model (gpt-4-0314) on major GEC benchmarks. We compare the performance of different prompts in both zero-shot and few-shot settings, analyzing intriguing or problematic outputs encountered with different prompt formats. We report the performance of our best prompt on the BEA-2019 and JFLEG datasets, finding that the GPT models can perform well in a sentence-level revision setting, with GPT-4 achieving a new high score on the JFLEG benchmark. Through human evaluation experiments, we compare the GPT models' corrections to source, human reference, and baseline GEC system sentences and observe differences in editing strategies and how they are scored by human raters.

Steven Coyne, Diana Galvan-Sosa, Ryan Spring et al.

Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) have contributed to the development of automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems that can correct grammatical errors. However, while these systems are effective at improving text, they are not optimally designed for language learning. They favor direct revisions, often with a click-to-fix functionality that can be applied without considering the reason for the correction. Meanwhile, depending on the error type, learners may benefit most from simple explanations and strategically indirect hints, especially on generalizable grammatical rules. To support the generation of such feedback, we introduce an annotation framework that models each error's error type and generalizability. For error type classification, we introduce a typology focused on inferring learners' knowledge gaps by connecting their errors to specific grammatical patterns. Following this framework, we collect a dataset of annotated learner errors and corresponding human-written feedback comments, each labeled as a direct correction or hint. With this data, we evaluate keyword-guided, keyword-free, and template-guided methods of generating feedback using large language models (LLMs). Human teachers examined each system's outputs, assessing them on grounds including relevance, factuality, and comprehensibility. We report on the development of the dataset and the comparative performance of the systems investigated.